Ungacta v Superior Court of Guam [2013] GUSC 29; 2013 Guam 29 (10 December 2013)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

MICHELE T. UNGACTA,
Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM,
Respondent,

and

PEOPLE OF GUAM,
Real Party In Interest.

Supreme Court Case No. WRM13-005
Superior Court Case No. CF0017-12

OPINION

Filed: December 10, 2013

Cite as: 2013 Guam 29

Submitted Without Argument
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Petitioner: F. Randall Cunliffe, Esq. Cunliffe & Cook, PC 210 Archbishop Flores St., Ste. 200 Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Real Party in Interest: Teri C. Tenorio, Esq. Office of the Attorney General 590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 706 Tamuning, GU 96913

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice; and KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.

PER CURIAM:

[1] Petitioner Michele T. Ungacta petitions this court for a writ of mandate commanding Respondent Superior Court of Guam to vacate its ruling denying her motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, and to dismiss the case based upon the failure to bring her to trial within the statutory speedy trial period set forth in 8 GCA § 80.60(a)(3). For the reasons set forth below, we grant a peremptory writ of mandate.[1]

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] Ungacta was indicted on January 17, 2012, on the charges of Simple Stalking (As a 3rd Degree Felony), Harassment (As a Petty Misdemeanor), Obstruction of Government Function (As a Misdemeanor), and Official Misconduct (As a Misdemeanor). On February 8, 2012, Ungacta was arraigned and asserted her right to a speedy trial.[2] On March 1, 2012,[3] Ungacta filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for failure of Real Party In Interest People of Guam (the "People") to give exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. The People thereafter filed a Superseding Indictment on March 7, 2012, which charged Ungacta with Simple Stalking (As a 3rd Degree Felony), Harassment (As a Petty Misdemeanor), Obstruction of Government Function (As a Misdemeanor), and two counts of Official Misconduct (As a Misdemeanor). On March 8, 2012, the Superior Court of Guam filed a motion to quash a subpoena issued upon it by the People, which sought arguably protected information from Ungacta's personnel file.

[3] Ungacta was arraigned on the Superseding Indictment on April 4, 2012, and stated at that arraignment that her initial assertion of speedy trial on February 8, 2012, remained in effect. On April 11, 2012, Ungacta filed a motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment, alleging that the indictment failed to provide a plain, concise, and definite written statement of essential facts constituting the crimes charged. On May 9, 2012, the trial court heard the motion to dismiss and took it under advisement. On August 9, 2012, the trial court issued a decision and order granting Ungacta's motion to dismiss in part and denying her motion in part.[4]

[4] On August 22, 2012, Ungacta filed another motion to dismiss, this time alleging that her statutory speedy trial rights were violated because she had not been brought to trial within 60 days of her arraignment. Before the motion was heard, the People filed a Second Superseding Indictment, again charging Ungacta with Simple Stalking (As a 3rd Degree Felony), Harassment (As a Petty Misdemeanor), Obstruction of Government Function (As a Misdemeanor), and two counts of Official Misconduct (As a Misdemeanor). On September 7, 2012, Ungacta was arraigned on the Second Superseding Indictment and continued to assert her right to a speedy trial. On September 19, 2012, Ungacta filed another motion to dismiss based on a violation of her statutory speedy trial rights. The trial court issued a decision and order on November 30, 2012, denying Ungacta's motion to dismiss on grounds of speedy trial violation. On the same day, the trial court also issued a decision and order granting the Superior Court's motion to quash.

[5] Ungacta waived her right to a speedy trial on December 4, 2012. On January 10, 2013, she filed a motion for reconsideration, asking the trial court to reconsider its speedy trial decision, arguing that the trial court erroneously undertook a constitutional speedy trial analysis rather than a statutory speedy trial analysis. In a July 25, 2013 decision and order, the trial court acknowledged employing an erroneous speedy trial analysis in its earlier decision and order, but nonetheless denied Ungacta's motion for reconsideration, citing technical defects in the motion.

[6] Ungacta filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate on August 2, 2013. The People filed its opposition brief on August 5, 2013, and the Superior Court declined the invitation to file an Answer. Additionally, Ungacta and the People, by order of this court, each filed a table laying out their respective speedy trial calculations. The court further ordered Ungacta and the People to file supplemental briefs on a single limited issue. Ungacta timely filed her supplemental brief on August 28, 2013. The People filed their supplemental brief on September 20, 2013, and Ungacta filed her reply brief on September 24, 2013. The matter was submitted to the court without argument.

II. JURISDICTION

[7] This court has jurisdiction over original proceedings for mandamus pursuant to 7 GCA §§ 3107(b), 31202, and 31203 (2005). In People v. Nicholson, this court determined that a writ of mandate proceeding is an appropriate remedy when challenging a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. 2007 Guam 9 ¶ 7 (citing Carver v. Superior Court, 1998 Guam 23 ¶ 9).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[8] A defendant bringing a pre-trial writ of mandamus need not demonstrate prejudice, but instead need only show that there was unjustified delay in bringing the case. People v. Munoz, No. CR-94-00100A, 1995 WL 604346, at *2 n.1 (D. Guam App. Div. Sept. 28, 2005) (citing People v. Wilson, 383 P.2d 452, 460 (Cal. 1963)). A trial court's denial of a defendant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Nicholson, 2007 Guam 9